Green Line Extension - Southwest LRT

[David Greene]

Central went through the same pains.

True, but people worked through the pains because nearly everyone saw what an asset the line would be. That's not the case with SWLRT. As chef said, "it is a line without a popular constituency"

I don't think it's different at all. Really not very many people in the grand scheme of things even *knew* about Central, much less cared about it. Sometimes we forget the bubble we are living in on this board (and in the Strib comments section).

There is definitely a popular constituency for this line. Even if you only look at the suburbs, people are very excited about what this line will bring. In Minneapolis it's harder to see due to money drowning out the conversation but given what I hear from Minneapolis reps on the SWLRT CAC and Midtown CAC, a lot of people in the city are excited about SWLRT. It's always easier to say, "no," and get heard in the media.

[RailBaronYarr]

Sorry, I meant that the rail through Kenilworth would be redirected to West End. At least that's how I understand it.

No, you're right. My point was:
- You'd be cool with 3C(ish) to EP routing if re-calculated ridership justified it (unless I misunderstood you)
- You'd want a streetcar of sorts through Kenilworth into downtown and (assuming) from VW/Penn/Royalston to West Lake for connecting out to SW suburbs at peak hours
- Matt's plan builds a 3A SWLRT now
- Matt's plan changes 3ASWLRT to 3C(ish)SWLRT in the future
- Matt's plan leaves open the possibility of Green Line to extend to West End/etc via VW/Penn/Royalston
- Peak hour streetcar from Interchange to West Lake using single-track streetcar in Kenilworth is a long-term possibility.

Seems like everyone wins in this situation - build reverse commute ridership from N Mpls, downtown, etc to SW burb job centers in short-term, long term you get an extra reverse commute option to West End and points beyond while requiring a slightly longer travel from Blue Line into new N-S SWLRT line running through downtown (or 2 transfers using the peak-hour streetcar in Kenilworth).

Again, I think you're making a wrong assumption. The pinch point is not the issue. Freight in Kenilworth is the issue. That's the *only* reason we're proposing a north tunnel at all. People want the freight gone. Any plan with at-grade colocation is a total non-starter. The number of tracks or takings matters not a bit.

Of course, I'm speaking of one opposition group. There are others opposed to any LRT in Kenilworth. Another group likes LRT in Kenilworth and doesn't really care about freight. A fourth (likely largest) group doesn't really care at all what happens.

Misunderstood the issue. I guess this is where I have little sympathy for people who simply want freight traffic from a rail corridor gone because they don't like it, particularly if there is a way to get them all at-grade without any meaningful takings or costly/risky tunnels or berms. Even more so if the long-term plan eliminates all-day LRT service from the corridor, leaving some peak hour streetcars and freight. I dunno. The word "non-starter" doesn't sit well with me. Also, why are people who want freight gone pushing for a tunnel to house LRT so... freight can remain at-grade?...

[Silophant]

I'm wondering about that too. Are they just pushing for it because they assume the Met Council will end up realizing that the tunnel is completely insane and move the freight instead? What if they don't, and we get a stupidly expensive tunnel that no one (except the park board, of course) actually wants?

[Archiapolis]

Sorry, I meant that the rail through Kenilworth would be redirected to West End. At least that's how I understand it.

No, you're right. My point was:
- You'd be cool with 3C(ish) to EP routing if re-calculated ridership justified it (unless I misunderstood you)
- You'd want a streetcar of sorts through Kenilworth into downtown and (assuming) from VW/Penn/Royalston to West Lake for connecting out to SW suburbs at peak hours
- Matt's plan builds a 3A SWLRT now
- Matt's plan changes 3ASWLRT to 3C(ish)SWLRT in the future
- Matt's plan leaves open the possibility of Green Line to extend to West End/etc via VW/Penn/Royalston
- Peak hour streetcar from Interchange to West Lake using single-track streetcar in Kenilworth is a long-term possibility.

Seems like everyone wins in this situation - build reverse commute ridership from N Mpls, downtown, etc to SW burb job centers in short-term, long term you get an extra reverse commute option to West End and points beyond while requiring a slightly longer travel from Blue Line into new N-S SWLRT line running through downtown (or 2 transfers using the peak-hour streetcar in Kenilworth).

If I am understanding this idea, it looks very attractive. Nicely outlined.

[David Greene]

I'm wondering about that too. Are they just pushing for it because they assume the Met Council will end up realizing that the tunnel is completely insane and move the freight instead? What if they don't, and we get a stupidly expensive tunnel that no one (except the park board, of course) actually wants?

I think it is different things to different people. Some are hoping for exactly the scenario you describe. Others are buying time.

At one of the CMC meetings, Peter Wagenius pitched it as mitigation to try to maintain as much of the current look&feel as possible. It's not that they would be happy with freight, but, "at least it won't be both."

Again, the residents are hardly of one mind on these issues.

[David Greene]

Sorry, I meant that the rail through Kenilworth would be redirected to West End. At least that's how I understand it.

No, you're right. My point was:
- You'd be cool with 3C(ish) to EP routing if re-calculated ridership justified it (unless I misunderstood you)
- You'd want a streetcar of sorts through Kenilworth into downtown and (assuming) from VW/Penn/Royalston to West Lake for connecting out to SW suburbs at peak hours
- Matt's plan builds a 3A SWLRT now
- Matt's plan changes 3ASWLRT to 3C(ish)SWLRT in the future
- Matt's plan leaves open the possibility of Green Line to extend to West End/etc via VW/Penn/Royalston
- Peak hour streetcar from Interchange to West Lake using single-track streetcar in Kenilworth is a long-term possibility.

Seems like everyone wins in this situation - build reverse commute ridership from N Mpls, downtown, etc to SW burb job centers in short-term, long term you get an extra reverse commute option to West End and points beyond while requiring a slightly longer travel from Blue Line into new N-S SWLRT line running through downtown (or 2 transfers using the peak-hour streetcar in Kenilworth).

If I am understanding this idea, it looks very attractive. Nicely outlined.

I does look good on paper but in reality I can't see it happening, not only because of the freight rail issue but the cost. We have many more projects that should get funded before a rebuild/reconfigure of SWLRT. I'd want to see a buildout of north metro transit before this, for example.

[Realstreets]

Can someone remind me about how changes to alignment affects the funding and therefore the time-frame? If the alignment is changed doesn't that set back the projects at least 5 years or more because of the necessary Alternatives Analysis and EISs? While I agree 5-10 years is not a lot in the scheme of these long-term projects, I think this needs to be made more clear to those talking about just moving the current alignment.

Also, if funding is transferred to the Bottineau will that affect the Federal funding and/or the completion date?

[David Greene]

Can someone remind me about how changes to alignment affects the funding and therefore the time-frame? If the alignment is changed doesn't that set back the projects at least 5 years or more because of the necessary Alternatives Analysis and EISs? While I agree 5-10 years is not a lot in the scheme of these long-term projects but I think this needs to be made more clear to those talking about just moving the SWLRT.

Also, if funding is transferred to the Bottineau will that affect the Federal funding and/or the completion date?

The answers here are fuzzy. Some amount of rework of the alignment is fine and doesn't trigger a re-start of the process. That's what happened in Eden Prairie (and with Hiawatha and MoA back in the day). At some point the changes become large enough that a new EIS is needed. That basically resets the project to the beginning. I'm not sure if it would have to go through the alternatives analysis process or not. This is where the 5-10 year delay number comes from.

If funding were to go to Bottineau, SWLRT would "lose its place in line" for federal funds. I am not really clear on exactly what that means but my best educated guess is that it would be at least a 5 year delay and possibly a lot more if studies need to be redone. I can imagine that at some point delays get long enough that FTA/EPA would require new studies to assess changed conditions.

It's possible that any "loss of place" would require new studies because the "place" was acquired based on the assumption that there was a continuous planning process intended to lead to a Full Funding Grant Agreement. If that chain is broken I imagine getting back in line would require new studies.

The reason I'm concerned about these delays is that it's quite likely that even with new studies, we'll end up exactly where we are 10 years from now, we will have wasted hundreds of millions of precious transit dollars and we will still have the freight rail fight, only the sides would be even more entrenched.

Plus we just can't wait that long to build our transit system. We're already losing a major competitive edge to peer regions.

[mattaudio]

Not sure how cost is a factor... this would be less than a shallow tunnel or a freight reroute.

Additional changes, such as an urban alignment or a western spur to West End, are not planned or funded. They would be debated on their own merits in the future. This is just saying it's smart to plan Southwest in a way that is cost effective now and leaves our options open to build upon it later.

[David Greene]

Not sure how cost is a factor... this would be less than a shallow tunnel or a freight reroute.

Additional changes, such as an urban alignment or a western spur to West End, are not planned or funded. They would be debated on their own merits in the future. This is just saying it's smart to plan Southwest in a way that is cost effective now and leaves our options open to build upon it later.

Sorry, I was speaking to the cost of the rebuild/extensions, not the baseline project.

[Mdcastle]

I'd be fine with the plan as long as we didn't stop running LRT through Kennilworth entirely, but maybe we could limit it to peak hours in each direction to function as a sort of commuter rail line. You wouldn't have to run all the express trains all the way to St. Paul although some of them should go that far- others could stop at downtown Minneapolis and the U.

[Silophant]

Reich, at least, is against the tunnel.

[twincitizen]

Resolution adopted: The City of Minneapolis opposes colocation of freight and LRT in the Kenliworth corridor, as it has since 2010, including shallow tunnels.

[Anondson]

I'm calling it, . Aaaaaand LRT dies on SWLRT. Really, it was inevitable. Just a slow motion train wreck. Doubt that SLP won't just take the bait and likewise.

[woofner]

In that this issue proves that every little detail of every little segment can possibly kill an LRT line, I agree that this could be the death knell of LRT in the Twin Cities. There are certainly similar issues on every other likely LRT line. Less pessimistically, there is a fair amount of institutional momentum towards LRT, thanks largely to the work of Peter McLaughlin in getting Hennepin County working towards it, and the work of Dibble, Hornstein, and Pogemiller in getting the Legislature to create CTIB. But the fact that the Minneapolis City Council, potentially the least parochial local government in the Twin Cities, has hardened its stance, makes it seem like there will not be a compromise on the freight rail relocation, which means the Met Council will need to move forward despite lack of consent from Mpls or SLP, which means there is a good chance SWLRT will not move forward.

This is a sad day for the Twin Cities and anyone who cares about transit here.

[mullen]

this was a unique situation. this is not precedent setting. we have a clear cut case of st louis park going back on something they agreed to. why should minneapolis just allow something that was not part of framework of this line? it shouldn't.

all minnesota politics is parochial. always been that way.

[woofner]

don't lecture me about politics. The Mpls City Council has the strongest pro-transit policies of any municipality in the metro. They are stronger even than the Met Council's policies. If anyone were going to "take one for the team" it would be them.

What happens when people who live around Wirth Park in Golden Valley organize and elect an anti-Bottineau majority to their council? What happens when St Paul residents don't think that a Gateway LRT is worth retaining walls in their backyard? What happens when... oh yeah, I've run out of LRT lines that are within the realm of possibility.

Mpls' withholding of consent on 35W led to a strong project outcome, let's hope something similar happens here. But somehow I doubt that the Met Council will be as eager to go past municipal consent as MnDot was.

[ECtransplant]

Mpls' withholding of consent on 35W led to a strong project outcome, let's hope something similar happens here.

3C?

[talindsay]

I would say that news of its death are greatly overstated. First, the Minneapolis resolution explicitly does *not* say that municipal consent will be withheld; it merely formalizes opposition. The original draft was edited to remove that threat. Second, while it's certainly true that building this line presents opportunity cost of other projects that can't be built, there's also a lot of institutional momentum to not let this one die. Personally I hope they just push Bottineau ahead and send this one back to the drawing board, but even that I think is unlikely. The governor, the Met Council, the County, and the cities further out along the line all want to see this happen, and SLP wants the line too. Minneapolis is more likely to be willing to sacrifice it than the other entities, but even there I think it's likely that in the end they'd hate to see it disappear from the table.

That's not to say its construction is inevitable - it's certainly possible it could die - but this is most certainly not the death-knell. This is the opening salvo in the final battle of this line's construction. Minneapolis took its prerogative as the regional core to force this round of debate to commence on the City's terms, and that could kill the line but it's more likely to cause more heated compromise discussions.

[the kid]

What we need is some real old fashioned political leadership. Yes there is plenty of blame to spread around, but if our new mayor really wants to get this built, then she'll need to be bold and risk offending some of her core constituents: the cidna cohort who "favors transit" as long as it is built "somewhere else". Ultimate hypocrytical nimby's. I call our new mayor out for not willing to risk offending her core constituency. The only way this gets built is through the kenilworth corridor without tunnels. We can't afford the tunnels, and so as far as that goes the council did the right thing.